The primary objective of any government heading to war is to make it's people believe that slaughter of people is justified, so don't listen to Bush, Powell, or any other American official without considering an opposing view. Recently televised was a scripted Q&A with Mr. President, which served to 'justify' action in the middle east.
Way back in the Gulf War, Americans were treated to footage of the surgical strikes made against Saddams evil regime. What the Iraqi people were treated to was a rain of artillery, bullets, run-of-the-mill bombs and 100,000 dead (both civillian and military) from all-out ground operations of the standard variety. News media were strictly controled to keep people from turning on the war mid way through.
Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? If not, he was a ruthless dictator of Chile, murdering and torturing dissidents. Just like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and any other 'bad guy' from American history books. The only difference was that he was not only supported by the United States, but was installed in by the angelic CIA. (see: declassified documents) An organization which in order to kill soviets, happily--no exageration--provided funding, training and arms to the Afghan jihad. Included in this program was everybody's favourite religious extremist; Osama bin Laden. (see: Jihad Unspun)
Governments manufacture consent for actions that would otherwise be opposed, that's not anything new. Neither is having a publicly known organization that does covert operations on foreign soil. While Pinochet was going about his regime, merry 'ol Saddam was a hitman for the Baas party that he now rules. The CIA handed him a list of Iraqi communists to "neutralize". He was later sent to assassinate the leader of Iraq and failed, being wounded in the process. Saddam fled to Egypt, where Baas was regrouped and strengthened. After becomming the new Iraqi leader, he was given money and arms by the US of A to aid in the conflict with Iran (Iran was also given the same). Ralph Nader is even on film shaking hands with Saddam and proclaiming him a great friend and ally of the US. And it's not like they didn't know he was massacring the Kurds, that fact was being actively covered up. It wasn't until local news media showed entire Kurd villages (ie. civillians) dead from gas that the US government supplied.
Somewhere along the way, somebody found out that each country in Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" had been promised billions of US dollars to participate, and aptly nicknamed it "The Coalition of the Billing".
In the setup for the Gulf War, the Shi'ites and the Kurds (both were being massacred by Saddam for being heretics) were told that if they were to rebel, they would be protected by the US military and would come to no harm. After the war ended, the Kurds and Shi'ites were completely abandoned. Troops were ordered not to interfere, and aircraft were leaving while Iraqi helecopters gunned down lines of civilians in plain sight. This fact was also actively covered up.
Twelve years later, one of many attacks agaisnt the opression of Islam turned to pearl in the targetted nation. Since that brisk september morning, the declared "war on terror" has been carefully altered to point back at Iraq, with no shortage of lies along the way. Frontline (see: Frontline) uncovered the fact that the "war on terror" was just an excuse to turn eyes to Iraq.
As it stands, literally not one shred of substantial evidence was provided to justify action agaisnt Iraq. Tony Blair recently reveiled an "MI-5 document" outlining Saddam's aresenal. It was soon discovered to be a blatent fraud by a California proffessor, who recieved that exact paper from a student as an assignment several months earlier. Colin Powell submitted ambiguous and grainy aerial photographs and even presented drawings as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The photos were of rebuilt structures on the sites of old nuclear facilities, weapons factories, etc. They were, however, not given to UN Weapons Inspectors for reasons of classification. Some aluminum tubes were found, and declared to be part of a uranium separating centrifuge, a theory which was denounced by experts of gas centrifuge at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore. (see:www.mindfully.org) The argument that Iraq has ties to terrorist cells is weak, seeing as Baghdad's having cells inside it would mean any country in which memebers reside is actively supporting terrorism. Like that slum outside of Buffalo. Oh, and the states where the suicide pilots lived. As for commanding them, that would mean any government led organization dedicated to "wet" work outside of it's native soil would be a terrorist cell. Especially if that organization would happen to train and arm terrorists in other countries. *cough*CIA*coughcough*.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::PostScript::
As for World War II, the States were pro-fascist until the Nazis sank a few oceanliners. In fact, they even traded openly with the Nazis. Pearl Harbour was identical to the World Trade Center attack. It was forseen, and let happen to stir the masses into one large frenzied mob to eliminate opposition to action.
Way back in the Gulf War, Americans were treated to footage of the surgical strikes made against Saddams evil regime. What the Iraqi people were treated to was a rain of artillery, bullets, run-of-the-mill bombs and 100,000 dead (both civillian and military) from all-out ground operations of the standard variety. News media were strictly controled to keep people from turning on the war mid way through.
Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? If not, he was a ruthless dictator of Chile, murdering and torturing dissidents. Just like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and any other 'bad guy' from American history books. The only difference was that he was not only supported by the United States, but was installed in by the angelic CIA. (see: declassified documents) An organization which in order to kill soviets, happily--no exageration--provided funding, training and arms to the Afghan jihad. Included in this program was everybody's favourite religious extremist; Osama bin Laden. (see: Jihad Unspun)
Governments manufacture consent for actions that would otherwise be opposed, that's not anything new. Neither is having a publicly known organization that does covert operations on foreign soil. While Pinochet was going about his regime, merry 'ol Saddam was a hitman for the Baas party that he now rules. The CIA handed him a list of Iraqi communists to "neutralize". He was later sent to assassinate the leader of Iraq and failed, being wounded in the process. Saddam fled to Egypt, where Baas was regrouped and strengthened. After becomming the new Iraqi leader, he was given money and arms by the US of A to aid in the conflict with Iran (Iran was also given the same). Ralph Nader is even on film shaking hands with Saddam and proclaiming him a great friend and ally of the US. And it's not like they didn't know he was massacring the Kurds, that fact was being actively covered up. It wasn't until local news media showed entire Kurd villages (ie. civillians) dead from gas that the US government supplied.
Somewhere along the way, somebody found out that each country in Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" had been promised billions of US dollars to participate, and aptly nicknamed it "The Coalition of the Billing".
In the setup for the Gulf War, the Shi'ites and the Kurds (both were being massacred by Saddam for being heretics) were told that if they were to rebel, they would be protected by the US military and would come to no harm. After the war ended, the Kurds and Shi'ites were completely abandoned. Troops were ordered not to interfere, and aircraft were leaving while Iraqi helecopters gunned down lines of civilians in plain sight. This fact was also actively covered up.
Twelve years later, one of many attacks agaisnt the opression of Islam turned to pearl in the targetted nation. Since that brisk september morning, the declared "war on terror" has been carefully altered to point back at Iraq, with no shortage of lies along the way. Frontline (see: Frontline) uncovered the fact that the "war on terror" was just an excuse to turn eyes to Iraq.
As it stands, literally not one shred of substantial evidence was provided to justify action agaisnt Iraq. Tony Blair recently reveiled an "MI-5 document" outlining Saddam's aresenal. It was soon discovered to be a blatent fraud by a California proffessor, who recieved that exact paper from a student as an assignment several months earlier. Colin Powell submitted ambiguous and grainy aerial photographs and even presented drawings as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The photos were of rebuilt structures on the sites of old nuclear facilities, weapons factories, etc. They were, however, not given to UN Weapons Inspectors for reasons of classification. Some aluminum tubes were found, and declared to be part of a uranium separating centrifuge, a theory which was denounced by experts of gas centrifuge at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore. (see:www.mindfully.org) The argument that Iraq has ties to terrorist cells is weak, seeing as Baghdad's having cells inside it would mean any country in which memebers reside is actively supporting terrorism. Like that slum outside of Buffalo. Oh, and the states where the suicide pilots lived. As for commanding them, that would mean any government led organization dedicated to "wet" work outside of it's native soil would be a terrorist cell. Especially if that organization would happen to train and arm terrorists in other countries. *cough*CIA*coughcough*.
George Walker Bush Jr Wrote:(Iraq) has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these (unmanned aerial vehicles) for missions targeting the United States.
Robert Collier @ SF Chronicle 12oct02 Wrote:Many experts believe such remarks are highly exaggerated. Because Iraqi airspace is closely monitored by U.S. and British planes and radar systems experts say the slow-moving unmanned aerial vehicles would likely be shot down as soon as they crossed Iraq's borders. It's also unclear how the vehicles would reach the U.S. mainland -- the nearest point is Maine, almost 5, 500 miles away -- without being intercepted.
Anthony Cordesman (security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) Wrote:Iraq's present holdings of delivery systems and chemical and biological weapons seem most likely to be so limited in technology and operational lethality that they do not constrain U.S. freedom of action or do much to intimidate Iraq's neighbors
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::PostScript::
jabbahunt Posted: Mar 19 2003, 02:00 AM Wrote:how to reply without rambling with so many options here.Your third point sickens me to my core. For a "free country" there seems to be a lot of apathy when it comes to exercising your right to speak out and have an opinion.
first I am 100 % behing america in what will happen.
2nd. Prez Bush has said what has to happen and followed thru.(how many of us can do that)
3rd. if you live here, you chose him and need to stand by him(if not u have a chance to change next time)
4th. over 80% did not want to involve the US in wwII until pearl harbor
last. over 90% didn't mind after pearl harbor(we have 9/11 do you need something else, I've had enough family die and not see it coming)
As for World War II, the States were pro-fascist until the Nazis sank a few oceanliners. In fact, they even traded openly with the Nazis. Pearl Harbour was identical to the World Trade Center attack. It was forseen, and let happen to stir the masses into one large frenzied mob to eliminate opposition to action.
g-boy Posted on Mar 18 2003, 10:48 PM Wrote:And by the way, Bush is not a moron. How many of you graduated from Yale? Just because he is not a slick speaker like Reagan or Clinton doesn't make him of lesser intellect. He's doing what he feels is best for our country, and I support the actions that are currently in progress.So I haven't graduated from Yale because my parents are wealthy and ex-White House inhabitants. But I did graduate grade 9 knowing where Afghanistan was on the map, and didn't have to fly people in to teach me geography after my inauguration. I also knew that the taliban was not a musical group, nor did I routinely make self contradictory statements. And if I were holding a scripted TV Q&A, I wouldn't screw up and say it was scripted on live television. Can't forget the complete lack of intelligence in gathering the second Coalition of the Billing. Seeing as individual people who didn't attend Yale, let alone take politics in school, can come up with better plans of gaining consent than him, the term "moron" isn't quite so loose after all.